Jewish Babylonian Talmud – Tract Yomah – Concerning the high-priest’s preparations for the service of the Day of Atonement.
TRACT YOMAH (DAY OF ATONEMENT).
CONCERNING THE HIGH-PRIEST’S PREPARATIONS FOR THE SERVICE OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT (WHEN THE TEMPLE WAS IN EXISTENCE).
MISHNA: Seven days before the Day of Atonement the high-priest is to be removed from his house to the Palhedrin Chamber (), and another high-priest is appointed to substitute him in case he become unfit for the service by becoming unclean. R. Jedudah says another wife is to be appointed for him also, in case his own wife dies, whereas it is said [Lev. xvii. 11], “and shall make atonement for himself and for his house”; “his house”–that is, his wife. But it was objected that in this manner there will be no end to the matter. (The other wife may die too.)
GEMARA: We have learned in a Mishna (Tract Parah, III., 1): “Seven days before the red cow 1 was to be burned, the priest who had to perform this ceremony was removed from his house to the northeastern chamber of the Temple,” etc. “Whence do we deduce this?” said R. Miniumi bar Helviah in the name of Mahassia b. Iddi, quoting R. Johanan: “It is written [Lev. viii. 34]: ‘As they have done this day, so hath the Lord commanded to do farther, to make an atonement for you.’ ‘To do farther’ signifies the red cow; ‘to make an atonement for you’, signifies the Day of Atonement.” But perhaps it signifies the atonement of sacrifices generally? Could we know, in this case,
which priest is going to perform the rite? How, then, could he be removed from his home? But perhaps other festivals are meant? We infer the removal seven days before one day from the removal, seven days (before) for the service of one day, 1 but not seven days (before) for a service of seven days [of the festivals of Passover and of Tabernacles]. Perhaps Pentecost, which also is only one day, is meant? Said R. Abba: “We infer a day of one bull and one ram (when one such is sacrificed) [as on the days of consecration], from a day of one bull and one ram, which is the offering for the Day of Atonement; but for Pentecost two rams are prescribed.” Perhaps New Year’s Day is meant (which is also only one day)? Said R. Abahu: “We may infer a day of the bull and the ram at the priest’s own cost from a day when the priest must act likewise, and that is the Day of Atonement. But on the days of Pentecost and of New Year the bull and ram are at the public cost.” R. Ashi, however, said: “We may infer a day on which the bull is a sin-offering, and the ram a burnt-offering (as on the day of consecration and on the Day of Atonement), but on New Year’s Day and Pentecost both are burnt-offerings.”
Rabbina said: “We may infer from a day on which the service is allowed only to the high-priest a day on which the same is the case, but on the other festivals [than the Day of Atonement] the service is permitted to other priests.
R. Johanan taught: “Both phrases, ‘to do farther’ and ‘to make an atonement,’ refer only to one day, and that is the Day of Atonement.” Resh Lakish, however, infers from the same two phrases–from “to do,” the red cow, and “to make an atonement,” the Day of Atonement (as stated previously). But how can R. Johanan infer only one of these, since we have learned that for the red cow the priest was also removed? That was not biblical, but optional. [To contradict the Sadducces, the priest was purposely made unclean, and therefore he was recompensed by honors, one of them that of being removed seven days before.]
When Rabbin came from Palestine, however, he said in the name of R. Johanan, quoting R. Ishmael: “By ‘do farther’ the red cow is meant, and by ‘to make atonement’ the Day of Atonement.” Said Resh Lakish to him: “Whence do you deduce this? From the days of consecration! As on those
days everything mentioned is obligatory, so on these occasions it should be. Perhaps you will say, it is so. But have we not learned that a substitute is prepared? and it is not written that the substitute must also be removed. If you will say, the substitute was likewise removed, then why does the Mishna say, the high-priest was removed, and a substitute was prepared? Let one expression be used concerning both.”
Rejoined R. Johanan: “Whence do you, Master, deduce this?” He answered: “I deduce it from what occurred on Mount Sinai. As it is written [Ex. xxiv. 16]: ‘And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and he called unto Moses on the seventh day.’ Let us see. He called him on the seventh day; to what purpose were the six days? To make a rule for every man who must enter the abode of the Shekhina, that he must be separated six days.” But did we not learn “seven days”? Six days are sufficient; but our Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah b. Bathyra, who says that seven days are requisite (as will be further explained).
Rejoined R. Johanan again to Resh Lakish: “It is, according to me, who deduce it from the days of consecration, that the following Boraitha should say, that on the priests on both occasions they sprinkled during all the seven days of preparation, from all the ashes of the red cows which were to be found there, because on the days of consecration there was also sprinkling. But according to you, who deduce it from Mount Sinai, where do you find sprinkling on Mount Sinai?” Resh Lakish answered: “Even according to your theory, are they equal? In the days of consecration the sprinkling was of blood, and here water Rejoined R. Johanan. “It presents no difficulty; because R. Hiya taught the water was later substituted for the blood. But according to your theory, on Mount Sinai there was no sprinkling at all?” Resh Lakish answered: “The sprinkling was an optional improvement.”
We have learned of one Boraitha which is in accordance with R. Johanan, and of another which is according to Resh Lakish. The one according to R. Johanan is as follows: It is written [Lev.
xvi. 3]: “With this shall Aaron come into the holy place.” The phrase “with this” means all that is said concerning the days of consecration. Namely, Aaron was separated seven days, and served but one; during the seven days Moses instructed him, to make him acquainted with the service. So it
should be in later generations; the high-priest should be separated for seven days, and serve one day, and two scholars of the disciples of Moses, excepting Sadducees, were placed in his society during the seven days to make him be practised in the service. Therefore it has been said, seven days before the Day of Atonement the high-priest must be removed from his house to the chamber of Palhedrin. And as the high-priest was separated, so the priest who was to burn the red cow was to be removed to the chamber in the northeast of the Temple. Both priests used to be sprinkled during all the seven days from the ashes of the red cow. And if you will say, on this occasion water of the ashes was sprinkled, and on the days of consecration it was blood that was sprinkled, it can be replied, that that water was a substitute for the blood, as it is written: “As they have done this day, so the Lord commanded to do farther, to make atonement for
you” [Lev. viii. 34]. “To do farther” means the red cow; “to make atonement,” the Day of Atonement.
The Boraitha according to Resh Lakish is as follows: Moses ascended in the cloud, was covered by the cloud, and was sanctified in the cloud, in order that he should have been able to receive the Torah for Israel in a state of sanctitude, as it is written [Ex. xxiv. 16]: “And the glory of the Lord abode upon the Mount Sinai.” This occurred after the day in which the ten commandments were given, which was the first of the next forty days. So said R. Jose the Galilean. R. Aqiba, however, said: “‘The Lord’s glory abode,’ that was the first day of the month (Sivan); ‘the cloud covered it,’ the mountain, not Moses (for during the six days the latter went from God to Israel and from Israel to God); ‘and he called,’ he called Moses himself. Although Moses and all Israel stood, yet to do honor to Moses, he called him alone.” R. Nathan said: “To what purpose was Moses covered by the cloud six days? That the victuals in his bowels should be digested, so that he should be pure as the angels.” R. Matthiah b. Heresh, however, said: “The entire separation was for the purpose of overawing him, that the Torah should be received with awe, shivering, and trembling, as it is written [Ps. ii. 11]: ‘Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.'” What is meant by “rejoice with trembling”? Said R. Adda bar Matna in the name of Rabh: “Where there is joy, there should be awe.”
On what point do R. Jose the Galilean and R. Aqiba differ?
They differ like the Tanaim of the following Boraitha: “On the sixth day of Sivan the Torah has been given to Israel; R. Jose, however, says, on the seventh.” According to him who says that the Torah was given on the sixth day, Moses ascended on the seventh; according to him who says, on the seventh, he received the Torah and ascended on the seventh day, as it is written [Ex.
xxix. 16]: “And he called unto Moses on the seventh day.” R. Jose the Galilean holds with the first Tana, who maintains that the Torah was given on the sixth of the month; arid therefore, he says, “the glory of the Lord abode” after the day on which the commandments had been given. The cloud covered Moses six days, and on the seventh he called him to receive the rest of the Law. But R. Aqiba holds, according to R. Jose, that the commandments were given on the seventh day, and that Moses ascended on the same day.
“And the Lord called unto Moses, and spoke unto him” [Lev. i. 1]. Why was it need to call first, and then to speak? The Torah teaches good manners, that a man should not communicate to
another anything before he tells him that he wishes to speak to him. And this is in support of R. Hanina, who has said the same.
Said R. Menasseh the Great: How is it known, when one person communicates something to another, that one has no right to tell it to a third without permission? It is written [ibid.], “spoke unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying” (in Hebrew “Lemor,” which is considered here as equivalent to “Lo Emor,” not to speak). From the above saying of Resh Lakish to R. Johanan, that if you infer all this from the days of consecration, etc., we must assume that both agree that whatever is written concerning the days of consecration is obligatory. Now from what has been taught, that about the days of consecration R. Johanan and
R. Hanina differed, one says, all that is written is obligatory, and the other, that only which is obligatory for later generations, but what is not obligatory for later generations was not obligatory even then. Infer that R. Johanan is the one who says that all that is written there is obligatory. For were the case otherwise, R. Johanan would have replied to Resh Lakish that it is not so.
In what consists the difference? Said R. Papa, in the separation for the seven days. According to him who says that all that is written there is obligatory, the removal of the high-priest for the seven days is obligatory (and if it was not done, his service
is invalid); according to the other opinion, this is not obligatory. But how is it known that in the second case this is not, obligatory? Because it is written in the Mishna: “A substitute is prepared,” and not “removed.” What is the reason of him who says that all which is written is obligatory? Said R. Itz’hak bar Bisna: It is written [Ex. xxix. 35]: “And thou shalt do unto Aaron and to his sons, thus.” Thus signifies that it is obligatory. This would be right in regard to all the things written in the chapter about the days of consecration; but whence is it known that other things not written in this chapter are also obligatory (e.g., the breastplate and Ephod, not mentioned in that chapter, yet known to be obligatory)? Said R. Na’hman b. Itz’hak: We infer it from an analogy of expression; in that chapter the “door of the tabernacle of the congregation” is mentioned [Lev. viii. 4], and in the chapter about the breast. plate, etc. [Ex. xxix. 4] the same expression recurs. (As in the case of practice it is obligatory, so in the case of the commandment.) R. Mesharshia says: It is inferred from “keep the charge of the Lord” [Lev. viii. 35] (an analogy of expression is not necessary, it is plainly said “keep,” hence it is obligatory).
R. Ashi says, from “for so I have been commanded” [ibid.]; hence it is obligatory.
How did Moses attire Aaron and his sons on the days of consecration? [That is, to understand the verses of the Bible; we wish to know it, although it does not concern us.] The sons of R. Hiya and R. Johanan differ. One party says he attired Aaron first, and the sons next; and the other, Aaron and his sons at the same time. Said Abayi: About the coats and the mitres they do not differ–namely, that Aaron was attired in them first, and the sons later; for both in speaking of the commandments and the practice Aaron is mentioned first [Ex. xxix. 56; Lev. viii, 7].
What they differ about is the girdle. The party who says, “Aaron, and his sons later,” does so because it is written, “and girded him with the girdle” [Lev. viii. 7] and later, “girded them with girdles” [ibid. 131. The party who says they were attired at the same time, do so because it is written, “Thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his children” [Ex. xxix. 9]. But how can it be said that he attired them at the same time (it is written plainly that first he attired Aaron, and then his sons)? There is a difference between a girdle of the high-priest and that of an
ordinary priest. That means, when it is written he girdled Aaron first. it is meant,
with the girdle of the high-priest; but with the ordinary girdles he attired them all at once.
“The high-priest is removed,” etc. For what purpose was he removed? “For what purpose?” Has it not been said above, R. Johanan gave one reason, Resh Lakish another? We mean to ask, why had he to be removed from his home (he could practise at home)? Because it was learned in a Boraitha that R. Jehudah b. Bathyra said, it is apprehended lest he have intercourse with his wife, when there is doubt that she is in her sickness (then he would become unclean for the next seven days, and be unable to serve in the temple).
It was taught: The uncleanness contracted from a dead body is not considered in the case of an entire congregation, according to R. Na’hman. R. Shesheth, however, says, it is only postponed in that case. If there are individuals in the family of priests thus defiled, there is no difference of opinion that those individuals may not serve; but if the whole family was thus defiled, there is a difference of opinion between R. Na’hman and R. Shesheth. According to R. Na’hman, clean individuals of another family need not be sought because, where there is a congregation, the defilement is not considered at all. And according to R. Shesheth, who says it is only postponed, individuals of another family may be looked for. According to others, R. Na’hman says: Even the unclean individual also served, as in case of a congregation defilement is not taken into consideration. Said R. Shesheth: The authority for my decree is the following Boraitha: “If one stand sacrificing the Omer, and it become unclean in his hand, he shall so notify, and the congregation shall bring another in its stead. But if there is no other, he is told to have sense and to keep silent.” Now we see that in the beginning it is said, another one should be brought in its stead; hence it is not permitted, but only postponed. Said R. Na’hman: I grant that, in a case in which the remains of the sacrifice must be eaten, when undefiled can be obtained, it is better.
On this point the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differed: The golden plate [Ex. xxviii. 36] which is made for the high-priest, whether it is on his brow or not, it atones for all defilements of the offerings.” So said R. Simeon; but R. Jehudah said, when it is on his brow it atones, but not otherwise. Said R. Simeon to him: The high-priest who serves on the Day of Atonement has not the plate on his brow, and nevertheless atones for all sins; hence we see that it atones even when not
on his brow. Answered R. Jehudah: Leave the high-priest on the Day of Atonement alone, for defilement is allowed to him when the whole congregation is defiled. Now, from R. Jehudah’s answer that the defilement is allowed, we must conclude that R. Simeon holds that the defilement is only postponed, but not allowed.
Said Abayi: When the plate had been broken, all agree that, it does not atone. They differ only when it is suspended on a peg. R. Jehudah says, because it is written [Ex. xxviii. 38], “it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall atone,” etc., (therefore) it only atones when it is on the brow. But R. Simeon’s opinion is: Because it is said, “always they may be received in favor before the Lord” [ibid., ibid.]; and it cannot be said that it is meant that it should always be on
his forehead, because he must satisfy human needs and sleep; hence we must say, it means that it always receives the Lord’s favor. But what will R. Jehudah say to this “always”? He explains that it is meant, it should never be absent from his mind.
Shall we assume that the former Tanaim differ as the Tanaim of the following Boraitha: Both the high-priest and the priest that was to burn the red cow were sprinkled upon during the seven days with all the ashes that were there. So said R. Meir., R. Jose, however, said: He was sprinkled only on the third and on the seventh day. R. Hanina the Segan of the priests said: “The priest that was to burn the red cow used to be sprinkled on during all the seven days, but the high-priest was sprinkled only the third and seventh.” Now, shall we assume that the point of difference is, because R. Meir says the defilement is only postponed in case of the congregation, and therefore he has to be sprinkled upon during the seven days, and R. Jose holds the defilement is not considered at all? (How can you say this? If R. Jose holds that the defilement is not considered, why the sprinkling at all on the third and the seventh?) Therefore we must say that all the Tanaim of this Boraitha hold that the defilement is only postponed, and not allowed, and the point on which they are at variance is this: R. Meir holds we compare the sprinkling to the bathing; as the bathing at the proper times is a religious duty, so also is the sprinkling. And
R. Jose holds, we do not compare (the sprinkling to the bathing). Now, then, what is the opinion of R. Hanina the Segan? If we compare it to bathing, the high-priest has to be sprinkled also every day; and if not, why is the other priest of the red cow sprinkled every
day? He does not compare; only in case of the priest of the red cow it is an optional improvement. R. Jose b. R. Hanina opposes this: Why is he sprinkled on the fourth day? (The law is that one unclean must be sprinkled on the third day and on the seventh [Num. xix. 12]. The first three days it was apprehended lest each be the third or seventh (after his unintentional defilement), but the fourth after the removal from his house call neither be the third nor the seventh. Even without this, could he be sprinkled all the seven days? One of them must have been on Sabbath, and sprinkling does not supersede Sabbath? Therefore we must say that what is said of the seven days, is meant with the exception of Sabbath. The same is the case with the fourth; it is meant, all the seven days, except the fourth. Said Rabba: Therefore the high-priest must be removed seven days before the Day of Atonement, whose date is not dependent on us; but on the third day of the month, 1 he must be removed seven days before that day, no matter when the fourth day falls. But the priest of the red cow, the date of whose removal depends on us, should be removed on such a day that the fourth shall fall on Sabbath.
“To the Palhedrin Chamber.” We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: Was it called the Palhedrin Chamber, it was called the Chamber of the Lords? He answers: Formerly it was called the Chamber of the Lords, but after the high-priests began to be appointed for money, and changed as government officers (Palhedrin, changed once in twelve months), it began to be called the Hall of the Palhedrin. What is meant by Palhedrin? Officers.
Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: It is written [in Proverbs x. 27]: “The fear of the Lord increases man’s days, but the years of the wicked will be shortened.” “The fear of the Lord increases the days”; that refers to the first Temple, during whose existence of four hundred and ten years there were only eighteen high-priests. “The years of the wicked will be shortened,” refers to the second Temple, which existed four hundred and twenty years, and more than three hundred high-priests succeeded each other during that period. Subtract the forty years during
which Simeon the Righteous ministered, eighty years of Johanan the high-priest’s ministry, and ten years of Ishmael b. Favi–according to others, eleven
years of R. Eleazer b. Harsum–and compute, you will see that not even one high-priest completed his year.
R. Johanan b. Turtha said: Why had Shiloh fallen? Two sins were committed there: adultery and sacrilege. Adultery, as it is written [1 Sam. ii. 22]: “Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons were in the habit of doing unto all Israel; and how they would lie with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” And sacrilege, as it is written [ibid. 17]: “And the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord; for the men despised the offering of the Lord.”
Why has the first Temple fallen? Because there were three things: idolatry, adultery, and bloodshed. Idolatry, as it is written [Jerem. xxviii. 20]: “For the bed shall be too short for a man to stretch himself out on it; and the covering too narrow to wrap himself in.” And R. Johanan said: The bed is too narrow that there should be two, God and the idols. [Said R. Samuel b.
Nahmoni: When R. Jonathan used to come to this verse, he used to cry, saying: That the Lord, of whom it is said [Ps. xxxiii. 7], “He gathereth together like heaps the waters of the sea,” should feel too little space because of an idol.] Adultery, as it is written [Is. iii. 16]: “Forasmuch as the daughters of Zion are fraud, and walk with stretched forth necks and casting about their eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet.” R. Itz’hak said to this: What is meant by tinkling? They used to fill the shoes with spices, and when a young man was by, they pressed the spices with the feet, to attract his attention.
Bloodshed, as it is written [2 Kings xxi. 16]: “And also innocent blood did Manasseh shed in very great abundance.”
But the second Temple, where the occupations were study of the Law, religious duties, and charity–why fell it? Because there was groundless enmity. 1 From this we can infer that unfounded hatred is equal to all the three sins together: idolatry, adultery, and bloodshed. In the time of the first Temple, although they were wicked, yet because they put their trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written [Micah iii. 11]: “Her heads judge for bribes, her priests teach for reward, and her prophets divine for money: and yet they will lean upon the
Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? evil cannot come over us.” For this, the Holy One, blessed be He, brought on them three chastisements, for their three sins; as it is written [ibid. 14]: “Therefore for your sake shall Zion be ploughed up as a field, and Jerusalem shall become ruinous heaps, and the mount of the house, forest-covered high places.”
R. Johanan and R. Elazar both said: In the time of the first Temple, as their sin was laid bare, therefore the date of the end of their suffering has likewise been revealed; but in the time of the second Temple, when their sin was not stated clearly in writing, therefore the date of the end (of their suffering) was not revealed either.
R. Johanan said again: The nail of those of the time of the first Temple was preferable to the belly (whole body) of those of the time of the second Temple. Said Resh Lakish to him: On the contrary, the last were better. Although they were subject to a foreign government, nevertheless they studied and observed the Law. Rejoined R. Johanan: The fact of the Temple can prove it. The first obtained the Temple once more, and the last have it not yet. R. Elazar was asked Who were greater, the first or the second? He replied: Take the Temple as a sign.
Resh Lakish was bathing in the Jordan: Rabba bar bar Hana came to him, and shook hands with him. Resh Lakish said to him: God detests you Babylonians, as it is written [Solomon’s Song
viii. 9]: “If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver; and if she be a door, we will enclose her with the boards of cedar.” That signifies thus If you were all strong as a wall, and went all with Ezra, you would have been like silver, which can never rot; but as you did not, you were like wooden doors, which are subject to decay.
It is possible that Resh Lakish spoke with Rabba bar bar Hana? If with R. Elazar, who was the principal man in Palestine, Resh Lakish did not speak; because it was a rule that, with whomsoever Resh Lakish spoke in the street, money could be given to him without witnesses. Should Resh Lakish then have spoken with Rabba bar bar Hana (who was an inferior man)?
Says R. Papa: Substitute another person. Either it was Resh Lakish and Z’eri, or R. Elazar and Rabba bar bar Hana. When the last came to R. Johanan and related to him what Resh Lakish had told him, he said: This is not the reason. If all had come with Ezra, even then the Shekhina would not have dwelt in the second Temple, since it is written [Gen. ix. 27]: “May
God enlarge the boundaries of Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem”; that signifies, that although God enlarges the boundaries of Japheth, his Shekhina can only dwell in the tents of Shem (i.e., because the second Temple was under the rule Of the Persians, who are of Japheth, the Shekhina could not dwell there, but only in Solomon’s Temple, which was Shem’s). And how is it known that the Persians are descendants of Japheth? Because it is written [Gen. X. 2]: “The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Jabon, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Thirass”; and R. Joseph has taught, that Thirass is Persia.
R. Joshua b. Levi said in the name of Rabbi: A time will come, when those who have destroyed the second Temple will fall into the hands of the Persians. As it is written [Jerem. xlix. 20]: “Therefore hear the counsel of the Lord, that he hath resolved against Edom; and his purposes, that he hath devised against the inhabitants of Theman. Surely the least of the flocks shall drag them away: surely he will devastate their habitation.” Rabba b. Ula opposed: How is it known that by the least of the flocks Persia is meant? Because it is written [Dan. viii. 20]: “The ram that thou hast seen, him with the two horns, signifies the kings of Media and Persia?” Perhaps Javan (the Greeks) are meant? As it is written [ibid. 21]: “And the shaggy he-goat is the king of Javan (Greece).” When R. Habiba b. Surmika went up to Palestine, he told to a scholar the objection of Rabba b. Ula. He said to him: A man who cannot explain the verses of the Bible should dare oppose Rabbi? What is meant by “the least of the flock”? the youngest of the brothers (that is, Thirass), and R. Joseph has said, Thirass is Persia.
Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan, quoting R. Jehudah b. Ilai, said: Those who have destroyed the second Temple will fall into the power of Persia. And this is an a fortiori
reasoning: If the children of Shem, who built the first Temple, and the Chaldeans, who destroyed it, fell into the hands of the Persians, how much more the destroyers of the second Temple, which the Persians themselves have built, must fall into the power of the Persians. Rabh, however, said: On the contrary, it will come that Persia will succumb under those who have destroyed the Temple. Said R. Kahana and R. Assi to Rabh: Is it right that those who had built the Temple should fall under the dominion of those who have destroyed it? He answered: Yea, such is the decree of the King. R. Jehudah also said in the name of Rabh: The Messiah, descended from
David, will not arrive until Rome shall have dominated over the entire world nine months. As it is written [Micah v. 2]: “Therefore he will give them up until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth”; and the end of the verse is, “then shall the remnant of his brethren return with the children of Israel.”
The rabbis taught: All the chambers of the Temple had no Mezuzahs, 1 except the Chamber of Palhedrin, which was a dwelling of the high-priest. Said R. Jehudah: Were there not many chambers in the Temple which were dwellings, and nevertheless were without Mezuzahs?
Therefore we must say that the Mezuzah in the Palhedrin Chamber was only as a precautionary measure (lest it be said of the high-priest that he was in prison, which requires no Mezuzah).
What is the reason of R. Jehudah’s opinion that no Mezuzahs need be in the chambers of the Temple, even those which are dwellings? Said Rabba: R. Jehudah holds that a house not made both for summer and winter is not considered a house requiring a Mezuzah. Abayi objected: Is it not written [Amos iii. 15]: “And I will smite the winter house together with the summer
house” (hence each is called a house)? He answered: It is called “winter house” or “summer house,” but not house alone. Abayi objected again: We have learned in Maasroth, III., 7: “In regard to the booths made for the Feast of Tabernacles, during that feast things are made obligatory by R. Jehudah, but not by the sages.” And concerning this Mishna we have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah makes obligatory in regard to them Erub, Mezuzah, and Tithes (hence we see even a booth is considered a house). But perhaps it will be said, this is only rabbinical, but not biblical? This would be right of Erub and Mezuzah, but about Tithes it cannot be said that R. Jehudah makes them obligatory only on rabbinical grounds, lest he will thus tithe grain which is to be tithed rabbinically for that which is to be tithed biblically, and this is forbidden.
Therefore said Rabha: During the whole year nobody differs from the opinion that the booth is exempt from these duties; they only disagree about the seven days of the feast. And the reason for the Sukka is one, and that for the chamber of the Temple is another. The reason for the Sukka is, because R. Jehudah is consistent with his theory that a Sukka must be a permanent dwelling; and a permanent dwelling requires a Mezuzah.
[paragraph continues] The rabbis are in accordance with their theory that a Sukka need be only a temporary dwelling, which requires no Mezuzah. And the reason for the chambers of the Temple is: The sages hold, a dwelling in which a person abides by compulsion is considered a dwelling-house; and R. Jehudah’s opinion is, it is not considered so. Therefore biblically it is exempt from a Mezuzah; but the rabbis have ordered a Mezuzah to be made, lest it be said the high-priest is imprisoned.
Who is the Tana of the following Boraitha which the rabbis taught: “All gates which were in the Temple had no Mezuzahs, except the gate of Nicanor, next to (before) which was the Palhedrin Chamber.” Shall we assume that this is only according to the rabbis, and not according to R. Jehudah? For, if it were according to R. Jehudah, who thinks the Mezuzah in the chamber itself was only a precautionary measure, how could a Mezuzah be made on the gate; that would be a precautionary measure against a precautionary measure? Nay, that is all one precautionary measure.
The rabbis taught: What is written [Deut. vi. 9] “upon thy gates” applies to the gates of houses, courtyards, cities, and countries; all these are under the obligation of this religious duty towards God, as it is written: “And thou shalt write upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.” Said Abayi to R. Saphra: Why was no Mezuzah made on the city gate of Mechuzah (the majority of whose population were Jews)? Abayi replied: It was not made, because it would have been dangerous. (The government in its ignorance would say it was a charm. 1)
As we have learned in the following Boraitha: A Mezuzah of an individual must be examined twice in a Sabbatical period (seven years, whether it is valid); and one of a congregation, twice in a jubilee (fifty years). And R. Jehudah said: It once happened a repairer examined a Mezuzah in the upper market of Ziporeth, and a quæstor surprised him doing this, and fined him a thousand Zuz. But did not R. Elazar say, that harm cannot befall a delegate for religious duties? In cases where harm is usually to be expected, it is different. As it is written [1 Sam. xvi. 2]: “And Samuel said: How shall I go? If Saul should hear it, he would kill me”; and the Lord said: “Take a heifer with thee; and say, To sacrifice unto the Lord am I come.” (It
is therefore evident that in cases of certain danger, even a delegate for a religious duty has to fear.) R. Kahna taught before R. Jehudah: A house where straw, cattle, wood, or grain is kept, is exempt from a Mezuzah, because women wash themselves there. Said R. Jehudah to him: Is that the reason why these houses are exempt? And otherwise, it were not so? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, a stable is exempt from a Mezuzah in any event? What is meant is, that in spite of the fact that women make their toilet there, and they may be considered as dwellings, yet they are exempt from Mezuzahs. Rejoined R. Kahna: Is that so? We have learned in another Boraitha, a stable is exempt from a Mezuzah; but if the women make their toilet there, then a Mezuzah is obligatory? What canst thou answer, except that it is one of several different opinions of the Tanaim? So I can say, that what I have said about the reason of the women’s washing themselves, is also one opinion of the Tanaim. R. Jehudah, however, holds that when it is not known that the women make their toilet there, all agree they are exempt.
R. Samuel b. R. Itz’hak taught in the presence of Rabba: Six kinds of gates are exempt from a Mezuzah: those of places where straw is kept, or cattle, wood, grain, or a Median (vaulted) gate, or a roofless gate, or one less than ten spans high. Thou hast said six, and hast enumerated seven? He answered: About the Median gate the opinions of the Tanaim are different.
The rabbis taught: “A prayer-house, a house belonging to a woman, and one belonging to two partners, must have a Mezuzah.” Is not this self-evident? One might think, because it is written “in thy house,” but not “in her house” or “in their house,” such are exempt, he comes to teach us
that it is not so. But whence do we deduce that it is not so? It is written [Deut. xi. 21]:”In order that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children” (a Mezuzah is then useful to longevity; does not a woman wish to live long?). Why, then, is it written “thy house” (Bethcha)? It is according to Rabha, who said, it is equivalent to Biathcha (thy entering); as one enters the house with the right foot usually foremost, therefore the Mezuzah should be on the right side of the entrance.
“Another high-priest is appointed,” etc. It is certain that when the high-priest became unfit by some accident before the daily morning offering (on the Day of Atonement itself), the substitute was exercised in the service of the daily morning offering
(and made to be recognizable as the high-priest). But if the accident happened after the daily morning offering, how was it? (All the services were done in the four articles of dress of an ordinary priest, not in the garments of a high-priest). Said R. Ada bar Ahba: He was exercised in the girdle. (So that he was recognized to be the high-priest.) It is right, according to the Tana who says that the girdle of the high-priest did not differ from that of an ordinary priest; and on the Day of Atonement, as the high-priest’s girdle was of byssus, he was identified as the high- priest, but according to him who says that the high-priest’s girdle was different (and to girdle him with the high-priest’s girdle, except during service, is forbidden), how then was he identified? Said Abayi: He attired himself in the eight articles of dress, and went with the basin, and turned over the sacrifice on the altar that it burn better. (This is considered a service, and he was thus exercised and recognized.) And that is according to R. Huna, who said: A layman who turns over the sacrifice is liable to capital punishment, because it is a service. R. Papa, however, said: His service is his exercise (no preparatory ones are necessary). Because, did not a Boraitha state that all the vessels Moses had made, were consecrated by their anointment? Who consecrated the vessels made later than the time of Moses? Their use for service consecrates them. So also here, his service is his exercise.
When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said: The girdle of the high-priest on the Day of Atonement was of byssus, according to all; during the whole year all agree it was of Kilaim (mixed of wool and linen). What they differ about is, whether a girdle of a common priest, during the whole year and on the Day of Atonement, was of Kilaim, as Rabbi says, or of byssus, as R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon says. Said R. Na’hman b. Itz’hak: We have also learned so in a Boraitha: It is written [Lev. vi. 3], “upon his flesh.” Why is “put upon” necessary? This is to add, that when he removes the ashes he must have on the mitre and girdle also. Such is the decree of
R. Jehudah. R. Dosa said: This is to add that the four garments of a high-priest on the Day of Atonement may be worn by a common priest. Said Rabbi: There are two objections to this. The first objection is, the girdle of a high-priest on the Day of Atonement is not the same as that of a common priest; and, secondly, how can it be said that the garments employed for a more important (?) holiness, may be used later for any less important. What else is
the phrase “put upon” to add? That he may use his old garments (and needs not new ones). R. Dosa, who prohibits old garments, except to common priests, decrees according to his theory in the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. xvi. 23], “And he shall leave them there”; that signifies they must be hidden. R. Dosa, however, said: He may not use them himself the next
year (on the Day of Atonement, but a common priest can use them).
The rabbis taught: When the high-priest happened to become unfit for service, and his substitute performed it, then after the Day of Atonement the high-priest resumes his service, and all the laws regarding the high-priesthood apply to the substitute (he can no longer be like a common priest). Such is the decree of R. Meir. R. Jose, however, says: The high-priest resumes his service, the substitute does not become like a high-priest, nor continues to be as a common priest. And R. Jose added: It happened to Joseph b. Alem of Ziporeth, that he was a substitute for the high-priest, who performed the service instead of the high-priest, to whom an accident had happened. Later the sages said, the high-priest should resume his service, and that Joseph b. Alem is fit no longer to be either a high-priest or a common priest. A high-priest, to prevent enmity; and a common priest, because there is a rule, in holiness one may increase but not decrease. Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jose. R. Jose grants, that if the substitute has performed service in the Temple, this service is valid.
R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh also: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jose, and R. Jose grants that when it happens the high-priest dies, he may become high-priest. This is self- evident? One might say, since he was his rival in life, he might not become a high-priest after his death. He comes to teach us it is not so.
“R. Jehudah says, another wife,” etc. The sages apprehend lest an accident happen to the high- priest himself, and prepare a substitute. Why not prepare another wife also? The rabbis can answer: An accident of defilement can happen, but death (which is rare) is not apprehended.
“There will be no end,” etc. The sages have given a good answer to R. Jehudah? R. Jehudah. can reply: That one may die, is apprehended; that both should die, is not.
The rabbis taught: The high-priest may sacrifice when he is
an Onen (one of his relatives had died, and not been interred yet), but he may not eat (of the sacrifices). R. Jehudah says, the whole day. What is meant? Said Rabh: If he is in his home, he must be brought to the Temple to perform the service. Said Abayi to him: How canst thou say this? We know that, according to R. Jehudah, he is told to stop, even when he is performing the service, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: “When he stands sacrificing on the altar,” and it is reported to him that one of his relatives is dead, he must interrupt the service, and go.
So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Jose says: He must conclude the service, and then go. And thou sayest he is brought from his home. Therefore says Rahha: What is meant by “the whole day”? The whole day he is not obliged to perform the service, when he is an Onen lest he eat of the sacrifices (but in the evening he may). Said R. Adda b. Ahba to Rabha: Does R. Jehudah take such a precautionary measure against his eating? Did we not learn in our Mishna, R. Jehudah said, another wife was prepared for him, lest his own wife die? If his wife die, he is expected to perform the service, and R. Jehudah does not take the precautionary measure lest he partake of the sacrifice? Rabha answered: What comparison is this? This is the Day of Atonement, when nobody eats; it is not feared that he shall eat. But on a common day it is apprehended.
MISHNA: During all the seven days he sprinkles the blood [of the daily offerings, to become practised], fumes the incense, trims the lamps, and offers the head and the leg. During all the other days, he sacrifices, if he chooses, since the high-priest offers the first portion as he prefers, and takes for his own use a portion of the first offering.
GEMARA: Who is the Tana who holds so? Said R. Hisda: That is not in accordance with R. Aqiba. For R. Aqiba holds that when a clean man is sprinkled upon, he thereby becomes defiled. And since the high-priest was sprinkled upon all the seven days, how could he perform the service? As we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [Num. xix. 19]: “And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean.” Infer from this (since unclean is written, not him), that only an unclean person becomes clean; but if a clean person is sprinkled on, he becomes unclean. So is the decree of R. Aqiba. But the sages said: This only applies to things subject to defilement. Abayi, however, said: It may be said, the
Mishna can be even in accordance with R. Aqiba; and the case is, the whole day he can perform the service, in the evening he bathes, and when the sun has set, he becomes clean.
“Fumes the incense, and trims the lamps.” From this we see that the rite of the incense is performed first, and after that, of the lamps. There is a contradiction? We have learned in Tamid, III., 6: “Who has got the privilege to clear the inner altar of the ashes, to trim the lamps and offer the incense” (hence we see, the lamps precede the incense). Said R. Johanan: The Tana who has taught the order of the rites on the Day of Atonement is R. Simeon, the man of Mitzpah, who differed from the sages of the Mishna in Tract Tamid.
And there is a contradiction even in this tract in the order of the rites, as we learn in a Mishna farther on. The second lot is to determine who should slaughter, who should sprinkle, who should clear the inner altar, who shall trim the lamps, and who shall carry up the members on the staircase. The third lot is drawn by nine priests, to determine who should offer the incense. (Hence the lamps here precede the incense also.) Said Abayi: It presents no difficulty. In the one case the two lamps are meant, in the other case the five lamps. (Shall we assume that between the trimming of the two lamps and the five lamps incense was offered?) Did not Abayi, who ordered the rites according to a tradition, say that between the trimming of the two and five lamps the blood of the daily sacrifice was sprinkled? We can say, it presents no difficulty. This is according to R. Abbu Saul, and according to the sages of the following Boraitha: One shall not trim the lamps, and then offer the incense; but he must first offer the incense, and then trim the lamps. Abbu Saul, however, said: He must first trim the lamps, and then offer the incense.
What is the reason of Abbu Saul’s decree? It is written [Ex. xxx. 7]: “Every morning, when he dresseth the lamps,” (and later) “shall he burn it.” What will the sages say to this? The sages say, at the same time both should be done, not that the lamps should be before the incense. For if you should not say so, how will the next verse be explained: “And when Aaron lighteth the lamps toward evening, shall he burn it” [ibid. 8]? He should first light, and then offer the incense later? And if you would say that so it is, did we not learn in a Boraitha, it is written, “from the evening to the morning” [Ex. xxvii. 21]? There is no service which is valid from the evening till the morning except this. (Hence we see
the lamps were the last.) (We must therefore say that) the Torah means, that at the same time the lamps are lighted, the incense is to be offered. So also is it with the cleaning of the lamps; when they are cleaned, the morning incense is offered. R. Papa said: The self-contradiction of this tract presents no difficulty, because one decree is according to the rabbis, and one according to Abbu Saul. What did R. Papa mean to say: He wants to ascribe our Mishna to the rabbis, and that speaking of the lots to Abbu Saul. Let us see how the end of that Mishna in Chap. III., namely, “went in to fume the morning incense, and to trim the lamps,” will correspond. This is certainly according to the rabbis. Then the first part and the conclusion of the Mishna will be according to the rabbis, and the middle part according to Abbu Saul? R. Papa can say, that this is the case.
In the Mishna in Tamid we have learned: When he comes to the northeastern corners of the altar, he places the blood there, and when he comes to the southwestern corners, he places the blood there. And in addition to this, we have learned in a Boraitha: “That R. Simeon, the man of Mitzpah, makes a. difference in the daily offering; namely, when he comes to the northeastern corners, he places the blood on both corners at once, but at the southwestern he first places it on the western corner, then on the southern.” What is the reason of R. Simeon? Said R. Johanan in the name of one disciple of the school of R. Janai: Because it is written [Num. xxviii. 15]: “One he-goat for a sin-offering unto the Lord, besides the continual burnt-offering, shall it be prepared with its drink-offering.” What is the sin-offering mentioned for, in connection with the burnt- offering? To teach us that though it is a burnt-offering, in one respect it must be sacrificed as a sin-offering; namely, at two of the four corners he places the blood on both corners at once as a burnt-offering, and at the southwestern he puts the blood on the western first, and on the southern thereafter.
We have learned in another Mishna (Tamid, III, 3): “The superintendent said to them, Go and bring a lamb from the chamber of the lambs.” The chamber of the lambs was in the northwestern corner (of the house of heating. Such an apartment existed in the temple, to render the marble pavement of the temple warm, on which the priest had to walk barefooted).
There were four chambers: one that of the lambs, one that of the seals, one that of the heating house, and one chamber
where the showbread was made. There is a contradiction to the Mishna in Midoth (I., 7): “Four chambers were in the heating house, like small rooms opening into a great hall: two belonged to the sanctuary, and two were profane; and small wickets parted the sacred ones from the profane ones. And what was their use? The southwestern was for the lambs for the sacrifices. The southeastern was that in which the showbread was made. In the northeastern the Maccabees (Hasmoneans) had hidden the stones of the altar profaned by the Greeks. The northwestern was used as a passage to the bath-house.” (There is, then, a contradiction between the two about the names and use of the chambers and situation of the chamber of lambs?) Said R. Huna: The Tana according to whom is the Mishna in Tract Midoth is R. Eliezer b. Jacob, as we have learned (ibid. IL, 5): The chamber at the northeast was the place where wood was kept, and the blemished priests examined the wood there, as mouldy wood was unfit for the altar. The northwestern chamber was the place of the cured lepers (who came to the Temple to be sprinkled to sacrifice). The southwestern? Says R. Eliezer b. Jacob: I forget what its use was.
Abbu Saul says: Wine and oil for the offerings were kept there, and it was called the chamber of oil. Hence we see the Mishna in Midoth must be in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. And so it also seems from another Mishna in Midoth (IV.). R. Addi b. Abba said: Our Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah of the following Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: The altar stood in the middle of the court, and was in size thirty-two ells, ten ells opposite to the door of the Temple (wide twenty ells), eleven ells toward the north, and eleven ells to the south: so that the altar was opposite to the Temple and to its walls. Now, if you would say that the Mishna in Midoth is according to R. Jehudah, how can it be that the altar should be in the middle of the court? R. Addi the son of R. Itz’hak said: The chamber of the lambs was at the western side, and extended toward both the north and southwestern corners; and to him who came from the southern side it seemed to be the north, while to one who came from the north it seemed in the southern corner (but in reality it was in the southwestern).
“The high-priest offers the first portion,” etc. The rabbis taught: What is meant by his offering a portion the first? He may say what burnt-offering or meal-offering he wants to offer (and no other priest may touch it). And what is meant by his
taking a portion the first? He may say of which sin-offering or trespass-offering he desires to partake. And he can take one of the two loaves. He can also take four or five of the loaves of the showbread. Rabbi said: He always took five loaves, because it is written [Lev. xxiv. 9]: “And it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons.” We interpret it thus: Half should belong to Aaron (or the high-priest) and half to the children of Aaron (priests). Does not this Boraitha contradict itself? First it is said, he takes one of the two loaves–that means, the half–and this is according to Rabbi, who maintains that the high-priest always takes the half. Now the middle part, which says that he takes four or five, must be according to the rabbis, who say he does not take the exact half; and in the conclusion it is said, Rabbi says he always takes five. It seems, then, that the first part and conclusion are according to Rabbi, and the middle part according to the sages? Said Abayi: The first part and the middle part are according to the rabbis, but they admit that out of two loaves the high-priest could not but receive one, as it was not becoming to give him half a loaf.
MISHNA: He is attended by some elders of the Beth Din, who read to him [out of Lev. xvi.] concerning the ceremonial of the day (of Atonement), and say to him: My lord the high-priest, say it aloud, lest thou hast forgotten, or not studied this. On the morning of the day preceding the Day of Atonement, he is placed at the eastern gate, and bulls, rams, and sheep are passed before him, that he should get a knowledge of the service.
During all the seven days he is free to eat and drink, but on the eve of the Day of Atonement, at dusk, he is not permitted to eat much, as it would induce drowsiness.
GEMARA: It is right that they should say to him, Perhaps thou hast forgotten. But that they should say to him, Perhaps thou hast not studied, is an ignorant man made a high-priest? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: It is written [Lev. xxi. 10]: “And the priest that is highest of his brethren.” That signifies, that he must be highest among his brethren in physical strength, in personal beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth.
An anonymous teacher said: Whence do we know that, if he is not rich, his brethren the priests must make him rich? Because it is written: “That is highest of his brethren,” that signifies, his brethren must contribute to make him highest.
Said R. Joseph: It presents no difficulty. That was the case
during the time of the first Temple, and this in the time of the second Temple. As R. Assi said: A whole measure of dinars, Martha daughter of Bithas gave to the king Janai, that he should make Joshua b. Gamla high-priest.
“On the morning of the day preceding the Day of Atonement.” We have learned a Boraitha: The he-goats were also passed before him. But why does not our Mishna mention it? Because (it holds that they were not passed), as the he-goats are only for the atonement of sin, he would have become dejected. If so, why were the bullocks passed, they are also for sins? Because the bulls were to atone for his sins and those of the priests, his brethren; he would not have become dispirited, because if they had sinned, he would have been told, and he would have induced them to repent. But the he-goats were to atone for the sins of all Israel: so he could not know who had sinned. Said Rabhina: This is what people say. Even if your sister’s son is a (publican), you should not pass him in the street, for, since he knows your affairs, he will take from you more than from others.
“During all the seven days,” etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah b. Naqusa said: They gave to him to eat bread of the best flour, and eggs that it should be digested more easily (that he should not find himself compelled to interrupt his service on the Day of Atonement for a human necessity). The sages said to him: This heats yet more. We have learned in a Boraitha: Symmachos said: They gave him as food no citron, no eggs, no old wine. According to others, he received no citron, no eggs, no fat meat, no old wine. Still others say: Even white wine he did not receive, because white wine brings a man to uncleanness.
MISHNA: The Elders of the Beth Din left him to the attendance of the Elders of the priesthood, who took him up to the house of Abtinas, made him swear, took farewell, and went away. They said: My lord the high-priest, we are delegates of the Beth Din, and thou art our delegate and the delegate of the Beth Din; we conjure thee by Him who has made His abode in this house, that thou shalt not alter one thing about which we have spoken to thee. He took farewell weeping, and they parted weeping.
If he was a teacher, he lectured; otherwise, the scholars lectured before him. If he was practised in reading, he reads; if not, they read to him. From which books of the Scriptures?
[paragraph continues] From Job, Ezra, and Chronicles. Zechariah b. Kabutal says: Many times I read to him out of Daniel.
GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: Teaching him the service consisted in teaching him to take a handful of incense (which had neither to be spilled nor any left on the top of the hand).
R. Papa said: The high-priest had two chambers, one that of Palhedrin, to sleep in, the other that of Abtinas, to learn the service. One was in the north, one in the south. One in the north, as we have learned in Midoth (V., 3): Six chambers were in the court: three in the north, three in the south. Those of the south were the chambers of salt, of Parva, and that where the entrails were washed. The chamber of the salt was where the salt was kept for the sacrifices; that of Parva, where the skins of the sacrifices of the sanctuary were salted, and on its roof was a bath-house for the high-priest on the Day of Atonement. The washing chamber was where the entrails of the sacrifices of the sanctuary were washed. Thence a stone staircase led to the roof of the chamber of Parva. The three in the north were: a chamber for wood, the chamber of Exile, and the chamber of Gazith (hewn marble stones).
About that of wood, said R. Eliezer b. Jacob, I forget for what purpose it was used. Abbu Saul says, the chamber of the high-priest was behind the first two of the above-mentioned ones; the roofs of them all were on the same level. In the chamber of Exile there was a well, which those returned from the Exile had dug; over it was a wheel, whereby water was drawn, to supply the whole Temple. In the chamber of Gazith the Sanhedrin of Israel held session, and examined there the priests. Whatever priest was found to be legally unfit for service, used to dress himself in black clothes, enveloped himself in black, and went away. If he was found fit, he would dress himself in white, envelope himself in white, and enter the Temple to serve with his brethren.
One other chamber was in the south, as we have learned in the following Mishna (Midoth V., 4): Seven gates were in the court: three at the north, three at the south, and one at the east. The south one was the Gate of Illumination, the other the Gate of the Sacrifices, the third the Gate of Water. At the east was the Gate of Nicanor; to this gate were adjoined two chambers, one at the right and one at the left. One was the chamber of Pin’has, the superintendent of the priests’ wardrobe; the other was where barrels were manufactured. At the north was the Gate of Nitzutz.
a balcony and an attic over it, where priests were watching (the Temple) above, and the Levites beneath. Inside was the Choyl (a round walled and roofed place, in the Temple). The other was the Gate of Sacrifices. The third was the Gate of the Heating House, and we have learned in another Boraitha that on that day the high-priest took five legal bathings, and ten times sanctified his hands and feet from the laver. [See Ex. xxx. 18.] Both the bathing and the sanctifications he performed on the roof of the chamber of Parva, in the sanctuary, except the first one, which he did not take in the sanctuary, but near the Gate of Water. The bath-house was on one side of his chamber, only I don’t know whether the Chamber of Palhedrin was in the north and that of Abtinas in the south, or vice versa.
“Thou art our delegate.” Shall we assume that in this Mishna is found an objection to R. Huna b.
R. Joshua, who said that the priests are delegates of the Merciful One (not of Beth Din)? If they were our delegates, then are there things which we ourselves may not do, and our delegates may (as in the case with the priests)? They did not say to the high-priest that he is their delegate, but that they conjured him to act according to their opinion and to that of Beth Din.
“He wept, and they wept.” He wept for being suspected of being a Sadducee, and they wept because they probably suspected an innocent man, as R. Joshua b. Levi said: “He who suspects an upright man is smitten by God in his body.” (See Sabbath, p. 191.) Why had he to be conjured? It was feared lest he prepare the incense on the censer outside of the Holy of Holies,
and then enter with the censer, as did the Sadducees. The rabbis taught: It happened to one Sadducee, who prepared outside, and entered the Holy of Holies with it, when he came out, he was rejoicing greatly. When his father met him, he said to him: My son, though we are Sadducees, yet we must fear the Pharisees. He replied: All my years I was anxious to fulfil the verse [Lev. xvi. 2], “For in the cloud will I appear upon the mercy seat,” and I said to myself, When will come the day when I might do it? And to-day, when I have had opportunity, should I not have done it? It was said, it did not take long before he died, and lay amidst rubbish, and worms crept out of his nose.
“Zechariah b. Kabutal,” etc. R. Hanan b. Rabha taught to Hiya the son of Rabh in the presence of Rabh: Said R. Zechariah b. Kavutal: Rabh made to him a sign with the hand that he
should say Kabutal. Why did he not say it to him? Rabh read Sh’ma’ at that time. Is it permitted to make signs when Sh’ma’ is read? Did not R. Itz’hak b. Samuel b. Martha say: He who reads Sh’ma’ must not wink his eyes, whistle with his lips, nor make signs with his fingers? And in a Boraitha we have also learned: R. Eliezer Hasma has said: He who reads Sh’ma’, and winks, or whistles, or makes signs with his fingers, of him the verse says [Isaiah xliii. 22]: “On me hast thou not called, Jacob.” It presents no difficulty; in the first part of the Sh’ma’ one may not do so, but during the recital of the second one may.
MISHNA: If he began to slumber, the young priests snapped with their fingers Tzreda, addressing him: My lord the high-priest, rise, and cool thyself once on the [marble] floor. He was kept occupied until the time for slaughtering the daily offering.
GEMARA: What is meant by the word Tzreda? Said R. Jehudah, the thumb. R. Huna showed this performance, and the sound went to all ends of the college.
“Cool thyself once on the floor.” Said R. Itz’hak: They said to him, show to us Kidah (supported only on his thumbs and great toes, to kiss the floor).
“Until the time for slaughtering.” We have learned in a Boraitha: He was not occupied by a violin or harp, but by voices: they sang to him. What? From Psalm cxxvii.: “Unless the Lord do build a house, in vain labor they that build it.” The respectable men of Jerusalem forbore to sleep the whole night, and talked among themselves, that the high-priest might hear the sound of voices, and not fall asleep. We have learned in a Boraitha: Abbu Saul says: Even in the countries where the temple was hot, they did it, in honor of the temple, but they came to sin on these occasions. Said Abayi, according to others, R. Na’hman b. Itz’hak: By what Abbu Saul said of the other countries, he meant Nahardea. Elijah said to R. Jehudah, the brother of R. Sala the Pious: You think to yourselves why Messiah does not come. To-day is the Day of Atonement, and many virgins have been lain with to-day in the City of Nahardea. Said to him R. Jehudah; What says the Holy One, blessed be He, to this? Elijah replied: He said in reference to this the verse in Genesis [iv. 7]: “Sin lieth at the door.” He asked: What says Satan to this? Elijah answered: On the Day of Atonement he has no right to bring forward accusations.
MISHNA: Every day the altar is cleared of the ashes at the time of the crowing of the Geber (cock), a little while before or after it; but on the Day of Atonement it is done soon after midnight, and on the other holidays after the first watch of the night. And before the cock’s crowing the fore court used to be filled with Israelites.
GEMARA: What is meant by Geber? Said Rabh, a man (Geber signifies “man” also). But the disciples of R. Shila say, a cock. It happened once, that Rabh was at the place where R. Shila was the chief of the college. R. Shila had no interpreter (as he lectured). Rabh assumed the function of his interpreter. When they came to this Mishna, “the cock’s crowing,” Rabh interpreted, “man’s heralding.” Said to him R. Shila: Let the Master say, “the cock’s crowing.” Rabh answered: A song good for educated men is not good for tanners. I have interpreted it thus for R. Hiya; he did not censure me, and you it does not please. Said R. Shila. Is the Master Rabh? Then, leave off. It is not fit that you should be my interpreter (sit on my chair, and I will interpret for you)? Rabh replied: The world says, If one has hired himself to a man, even if he tells him to brush wool (a work only for women) he should do it. According to others, he answered to him: In matters of holiness one increases, but does not decrease.
We have learned in one Boraitha according to Rabh, and in another according to R. Shila. We have learned according to Rabh: Gabini the Herald used to herald: Rise, priests, to your service; and Levites, to your chanting; and Israel, to your standing. 1 And his voice was heard at the distance of three parsaoth. It happened once that Agrippa the king being on the road, he heard Gabini’s voice at the distance of three parsaoth. When he returned home, he sent him presents. Nevertheless, the voice of the high-priest surpassed in strength that of Gabini the Herald.
Because the Master said, when he used to say on the Day of Atonement, “I pray Thee, O Lord,” his voice was heard at Jericho, and Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: Between Jericho and Jerusalem is the distance of ten parsaoth, and although on the Day of Atonement one is weak from fasting, and though his voice was heard by day, whereas Gabini heralded only by night.
And we have learned in a Boraitha according to R. Shila: “He
who walks on the road before the “Kriath Hageber” (cock’s crowing), his blood is on his head.
R. Joshiah says: Before the second cock’s crowing. And according to others, before he crows the third time. Of what sort of cock is this said? Of a moderate cock (not a hasty or tardy one). R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: “When Israel used to come on the three pilgrimages, they stood crowded. But when they prostrated themselves, they had much space, and stationed themselves eleven ells behind the mercy-seat.” What does he mean? Although they were eleven ells behind the mercy-seat, and were crowded, yet when they prostrated themselves they had much room, and this was one of the ten miracles that occurred in the Temple. (See Aboth, V., 2.)
Were there only ten miracles? Did not R. Ushia say that when Solomon built the Temple, he planted there all kinds of golden fruit-trees, and they bore fruits at the proper times, and when the wind blew on them, they fell down and were ripe? As it is written in Psalm lxxii. 16: “Its fruits shall shake like the trees of Lebanon.” And when the Gentiles had entered the Temple, the fruit-trees became withered (blighted), as it is writ. ten [Nahum i. 4]: “The flowers of Lebanon wither,” and the Holy One, blessed be He, will restore them. As it is written [Is. xxxi. 2]: “It shall blossom abundantly and rejoice; yea, with joy and singing, the glory of the Lebanon shall
be given unto it.” (So we see there were miracles besides the ten?) In the Mishna are counted only the perpetual miracles, but those happening on certain times only have not been reckoned.
The Master says elsewhere that in Jerusalem were two perpetual miracles: the rain never extinguished the fire on the outer altar, and the smoke was always straight in spite of the winds, in whichever directions they might blow. But we have learned in a Boraitha: Five things have been said of the fire on the altar: It had the form of a lion, it was clear as the sun, it was palpable, it consumed moist things as dry ones, and never emitted any smoke. (There is, then, a contradiction, since there was no smoke at all?) The smoke was that of the fire kindled by men. As we have learned in a Boraitha: It is written [Lev. i. 7]: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar.” Infer from this, that although the fire descended from heaven, it was a merit to kindle an earthly fire also. (There is another contradiction?) You say it had the form of a lion. We have learned in a Boraitha, R. Hanina the Segan of
the priests said. I have seen it, and it had the form of a dog? It presents no difficulty: in the time of the first Temple it was like a lion, and of the second, like a dog.
But in the second Temple there was no heavenly fire at all, as R. Samuel b. Inia said: It is written [Haggai i. 8]: “That I may take pleasure in it, and be glorified”; it is written “Veikabed,” and it is read “Veikabdah.” Why is the “h” missing? This is to hint that five (the numeral value of “h”) things were missing in the second Temple. What are they? The ark, the mercy-seat, the cherubim, the heavenly fire, the Shekhina, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Tumim. So we see there was no heavenly fire in the second Temple at all? We may say, it was there, only it did not assist in consuming.
It is said above, that no wind could divert the smoke. But this is not so? Did not R. Itz’hak b. Abdimi say: At the expiration of the Feast of Tabernacles, all looked on the smoke of the altar: when it was inclined to the north, the poor rejoiced, and the wealthier were dejected, for it showed there would be too much rain, and the fruit would rot: but when it was inclined to the south, the poor were out of spirits, and the rich were glad, for this was a sign there would be little rain, and the fruit would remain well-preserved, and fetch a high price. When it was bent eastward, all rejoiced, and westward, all were deploring it (thus we see that the smoke was swayed by the wind?). It was made by the wind oblique, but not crooked.
1:1 Some translators say [Numbers xix. 2] “red heifer”; but this would not be proper, according to the teaching of the Mishna that the red cow must not be younger than three years and is fit even from four to five years, for which the term heifer cannot be correctly used.
Next: Chapter II: The Lots Priests Drew, Which Priests Should go to the Altar, How Many Priests Needed for Each Sacrifice